Doesn't it have 2' thick blast walls and 2" thick glass? Restricted air space. Wouldn't you consider that a little more protected than most building?
Before we continue, I want to point out that this phrase has been posted to the internet so often that Microsoft is considering making it a hot key command. In my experience this phrase precedes the posts of someone who intends to espouse unsupported talking points, and then run away. If we're going to have a discussion, I want you to know that I expect equal discourse. If you ask a question I will do my best to answer it. If I ask a question I expect the same. You questioned why the surveillance footage of the pentagon could not accurately capture the image of the aircraft. That question was answered. You have been asked a series of questions. Do you intend to answer them? Your question about the building was about capturing the image of the aircraft used to strike it. What does the thickness of the walls, or the type of glass used in the construction of the building have to do with this?
Part of the reason it's so common is it's use for both sincere questions and trolling. If at a later date it becomes clear from posts you were misleading users, don't blame them when they call you out. IMO I would add, if a question you have asked is answered, particularly one requiring some research on the other person's part, please don't ignore the answer or carry on as if a reply hadn't been given. Of course I have no reason to think tdekster needs these suggestions, but I understand why Fangbeer wants to get some ground rules laid...
What does cement and glass thickness have to do with producing a good photo? What makes you think the Pentagon had restricted air space? Do you know where Reagan National Airport is?
I don't believe you had questioned the Pentagon protection only Lonestar. If I directed that towards you I did not mean to. I simply stated that the Pentagon was one of the most protected buildings on the planet. I don't think that's far fetched. Then I stated I did not understand how the cameras did not capture the image of anything other than the explosion. I just don't understand. I appreciate your response. Now here is my question. Do you have something to support your theory regarding the capabilities of the Pentagon cameras?
You guys really pile on here. I believe lonestar asked why I thought the Pentagon was one of the most protected buildings. I simply answered. As far as restricted airspace maybe I am wrong but I don't believe I am about the wall and glass thickness. This subject is really trivial. My question was simply the image quality of the cameras or images at all.
It's not a theory. It's a fact. Consider: Closed circuit television systems use a sensor called a CCD to convert visible light into an electrical signal that can be recorded either digitally or analog. The quality of the image captured is dependent on multiple things. The size of the CCD will determine the resolution of the image. The speed and sensitivity of the CCD will determine the quality of the image. The quality of video capture is also dependent on the number of frames that are captured per second. 1. Even fastest CCD sensors take a period of time to completely scan across their entire surface. The process is much slower then the speed of the light that enters the sensor. This means that one area of the image was actually captured at a different point in time then other areas of the image. This creates issues in high speed photography. Rolling shutter would be an example of such a problem. 2. The higher the quality of a captured image, the longer it takes to process to a storage media, and the more space it takes up on that storage media. Because of this, some systems can take high quality still images, but they are not fast enough to create high quality video of these still images because of the subsequent drop in frame rate high quality image capture creates. 3. CCD sensors are used because they are durable. They are not overly sensitive to changes in temperature, pressure, and light exposure. They are relatively small, and they are relatively inexpensive. If you leave an HDTV movie camera out on a pole in the front yard for a year it will be highly degraded. It's a waste of money to use such a thing for building security. Now let's talk about the intent of video surveillance at the Pentagon. CCTV cameras are an active security system. They are designed to show real time images to security personnel that can respond to these images. The intent of the recording is not to help in maintaining security, but to provide a way to respond after the area has been secured. These images are also recorded for forensic use, but this use has always had limitations. Lastly, due to FOIA the government has to store these recordings forever. 1 hour of uncompressed HD video can take about 11gb of storage. That's 96 terabytes per year per camera. Multiply that by the number of cameras on site, and the number of years the system is in place. Do you think such a system would be logical to have in place so that images of high speed large objects can be captured on video? No. It doesn't make sense because we have a different system in place to capture high speed large objects. It's called radar.
The word protected is the issue. You said that such a protected building should have systems in place to capture high speed objects. This was the point of the question. Why do you think the building should have been protected in this way; with a system that can capture an aircraft moving at 500 miles an hour on video?
You seem to have some knowledge regarding security cameras. Do you have a link or website that supports what you say, preferably a manufacturers website. I don't even know who makes commercial security cameras. I would only assume that the pentagon would have a full spectrum of different types of cameras and capabilities. The military has very sophisticated cameras. I am having a hard time with this because of the technology in the U-2 aircraft or the SR-71. Different purpose but the technology was clearly there. But back to my question. Am I correct in saying that the first video released was from a convenience store and not the Pentagon cameras? Wasn't it from the 7 11?
The research you do on your own will be far more valuable then any hand holding I could do for you. I gave you the basics. If you don't believe me then do your own homework. You answered your own question. It was for a different purpose. And for the record, the high altitude images taken by the U -2 and SR-71 were long exposure. They would not have captured high speed moving objects in their field of view. If you're looking for the technology, it's not to be found in high altitude spy technology. Not even the corona satellite's camera could have captured an object the size of the jet moving at 500 mph less then 1000 feet from its lens. It's only been very recently that the computing power necessary to process high frame rate digital video has been available. Film systems used previously could only capture a few seconds worth of video before they ran out of film. I have no idea what you're talking about. Which do you think was the first video and who released it?
Good point. But security camera systems are designed to capture certain areas and certain things. People trying to get into secure areas perhaps. And long term storage is an issue if you are shooting a high number of frames per second. Would anyone anticipate the need to capture a high resolution image of a jet moving at 500+ mph in the vicinity of the Pentagon prior to 9/11? Why would you design the system with these capabilities if there was no need? (at the time) Michael Moore said he has filmed at the Pentagon. He says there are hundreds of cameras around the Pentagon. But then he also claims there are cameras in the trees.
You would be completely wrong. The first videos released were from the parking lot security camera at the Pentagon. Later, the video from the Citgo and Double Tree hotel were released. Neither of these videos showed the plane, but did show the explosion after the plane hit. This isn't hard information to find. Two seconds with Google is more time than is needed. And yes. The technology is there. Who is going to put in a multi million dollar security camera that is huge and requires lots of maintenance? Security cameras are cheap and low quality because that is usually all that is needed. None of the cameras were designed to be scanning the skies for incomming rogue planes. They were designed to capture traffic at the Pentagon and shoplifters at the Citgo and to watch the front entrance of the Double Tree hotel. Can YOU justify millions of dollars per camera just to watch traffic, shoplifters or the front entrance?
FYI this is the camera on the SR-71 and U-2 Platforms. http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/itek-pan-camera.htm This type of system obviously would not work in a stationary CCTV camera.
I will obviously have to do my own work and look at the cameras. I was expecting to get hammered with hard data. You guys are convinced for a reason and I would hope you would share that with me. Asking if the Pentagon can justify millions in cameras. Well yes. They have spent a lot more on a lot less.
That's not the question. The question is if the Pentagon should justify spending millions in cameras for the purpose of capturing high speed surveillance video. The pentagon has lots of money to spend for sure, but it is not infinite. Its employees don't all drive to work in stealth cars with night vision and heat seeking missiles under the bumper. The reason is that such expense is not justified. There's no reason to outfit everyone in the pentagon with the capability to shoot down incoming aircraft, and there's no reason for the CCTV system to capture high speed video. Even after the attack took place, there's still no reason to have high speed CCTV cameras. There are far more important defense systems that should be put in place before we worry about being able to show the event on the news.
Given the fact that they have spent more on less and were villified for it, do you think they could have justified it prior to 9/11? I can't speak for others, but I am not convinced for "a" reason but rather when looking at all the available evidence on both sides it appears to me that the "official BS story" as truthers like to call it is far more believable than any thing the truthers have to offer. Directed energy weapons? Faked planes on live video? Massive conspiracy involving thousands and no one has spoken out? Switching planes and taking planes and passegers to a secret location to be blown up then brought back to be planted at the appropriate sites? These are all scenarios that have been put forth by truthers. I'm not saying everything the government said about it is 100% true, but I believe that any lies that were told had more to do with covering one's ass than keeping a deep, dark conspiracy a secret.
The bottom line is that a system capable of capturing the impact that could be put in place and run 24x7 in the anticipation of that impact absolutely did not exist at the time. To this day, it's still not practical.
And can you imagine what the storage would cost back then to hold the video? An installation that I am familiar with is using 17 cameras at 4 frames per second, has 12 terabytes of storage and goes back 30 days.
The Pentagon was under renovation because of the Oklahoma City bombings. They were renovating the outer windows and blast walls. We had hijacked airliners long before 911 so to assume there is not a reason for it is not valid. Were you the fly on the wall and know that they were not concerned about this. Maybe they weren't forward thinking. Lot of opinions regarding these cameras.
How many were flown into a building prior to 9/11? Were you a fly on the wall and know that they discussed it? Clearly. Maybe their crystal balls were in the shop for repairs. Yup. Lots of opinions regarding 9/11 in general.
OKC bombings were done with explosives inside a vehicle. It is logical to believe they were reinforcing the Pentagon against a car or truck bomb. Prior to 9/11, no hijacked plane was used as a weapon by flying it into a building.
High speed video does not protect against aircraft. Installing high speed cameras to protect against someone slamming an plane into your building is like making a bullet proof casket. By the time it's of any use it's too late. We track aircraft with radar, not video.
You all say we didn't have a reason to believe that an aircraft or some airborne weapon wouldn't threaten us. Specifically our leaders. Wikipedia talks about this but I posted a link from CNN. In July 2001 at the G8 in Italy they installed surface to air missiles for what reason? http://articles.cnn.com/2001-07-17/...ummit-security-forces-bomb-attack?_s=PM:WORLD
